Mike Butler: Global warming ‘remedies’ damaging

In 1604, King James I of England published Counterblaste to Tobacco in which he condemned the smoking of this anti-social and health-destroying weed. He was correct, but it took 400 years for science to prove that it is harmful.

New Zealand scientist Dr Kelvin Duncan has written Global Warming: A Counter-blaste to the Man-made global warming hypothesis to clear away a psychosis created by repeated pronouncements that we humans are solely responsible for present climate change.

Mike Butler: Global warming ‘remedies’ damaging

In 1604, King James I of England published Counterblaste to Tobacco in which he condemned the smoking of this anti-social and health-destroying weed. He was correct, but it took 400 years for science to prove that it is harmful.

New Zealand scientist Dr Kelvin Duncan has written Global Warming: A Counter-blaste to the Man-made global warming hypothesis to clear away a psychosis created by repeated pronouncements that we humans are solely responsible for present climate change.

Dr Duncan is no lightweight. He has a PhD in biology from Canterbury University, taught biology and statistics and became Dean of Science there, was a member of the Royal Society New Zealand and of the New York Academy of Sciences, and has worked on developing products including a scar tissue repair, and a skin cancer cure.

Like a distinguished professor, in his new book Dr Duncan patiently goes through the science related to each aspect of the global warming hypothesis. He presents alarmist reasoning, shows the flaws, and hands out fail grades.

Kelvin Duncan: The UN Compact on Migration

The UN Compact on Migration hasn’t raised the amount of discussion it warrants and this is a major concern as it contains some quite unacceptable requirements to which we must simply not agree. Admittedly, there it contains some good ideas, including sharing information between nations, although I believe all decent countries already do this.

A number of countries have already refused to sign, but they have been labelled as right-wing by the Compact's proponents, which is quite unfair in my opinion.

Why am I concerned that we must not sign it? Haven’t we have been assured by Mr Winston Peters that the previous National Government started the process (not true, they did not determine the content of the Compact as implied by Peters during Question Time in the House), and that there is nothing to see here, so move on and trust us.